Lloyd-Wolper v Moore & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 766 (18 June 2004)

Lloyd-Wolper v Moore & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 766 (18 June 2004)

Permission given by the insured to the driver, even if based on a mistaken belief or misrepresentation as to the driver's age or licence, constitutes 'permission' under Section 151(8) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The appellant's mistaken belief or alleged misrepresentation does not negate liability. The appeal is dismissed as there is no arguable defence to the insurer's claim for recovery.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 766
Parties
Claimant: Philip Owen Lloyd-Wolper; 1st Defendant/1st Part 20 Defendant: Robert Moore; 2nd Defendant/part 20 Claimants/respondents: National Insurance Guarantee Corporation plc; 2nd Part 20 Defendant/appellant: Charles Moore
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Motor Insurance Liability, Third Party Risks, Summary Judgment, Permission Under Insurance Policies, Misrepresentation and Conditional Permission
Insurance Law Road Traffic Law Civil Procedure Motor Insurance Liability Third Party Risks Summary Judgment Permission Under Insurance Policies Misrepresentation and Conditional Permission

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Owen Lloyd-Wolper

Claimant

Robert Moore

1st Defendant/1st Part 20 Defendant

National Insurance Guarantee Corporation plc

2nd Defendant/part 20 Claimants/respondents

Charles Moore

2nd Part 20 Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant 'caused or permitted the use of the vehicle' under Section 151(8) of the Road Traffic Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether a mistaken belief or misrepresentation as to the driver's licence or age negates permission under the statute
  3. 3 Whether permission to drive an over-capacity vehicle constitutes a separate ground for liability

Ratio Decidendi

Permission given by the insured to the driver, even if based on a mistaken belief or misrepresentation as to the driver's age or licence, constitutes 'permission' under Section 151(8) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The appellant's mistaken belief or alleged misrepresentation does not negate liability. The appeal is dismissed as there is no arguable defence to the insurer's claim for recovery.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay Respondents' costs of the appeal, subject to assessment if not agreed